Further implementing the unified system, the 1991 legislature abolished county courts, merged county and district judgeships into a single trial court, and sought greater efficiency.(553) The measure directed the gradual reduction of trial court-judgeships to begin in 1995, decreasing from fifty-three judges in 1991 to forty-two by January 1, 2001.(554)

In December 1997, at the Court's request, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), after study of weighted caseloads, reported that measuring the then-existing number of forty-six trial judgeships and 6.8 referees (including part-timers) against the caseload indicated a quantitative surplus of 3.84 judicial bodies. There are nagging worries, however, about the extent of the judicial reductions dictated by the legislature (although never recommended by the Supreme Court) because the NCSC study did not "quantify" significant intangibles and varying factors, like accidental deaths or severe disabilities, long absences or vacancies, and caseload surges in particular localities.(555)

With helpful guidance from Justice William Neumann, a former trial judge, the Supreme Court has carried out the orderly reduction of the number of judgeships through gradual attrition from deaths, resignations, and decisions not to seek reelection. Only a single judgeship remains to be vacated before the end of 2000 to reach the dictated efficiency of forty-two trial court judges.(556)

Chief Justice VandeWalle explained the effect of unifying the court system to the 1999 legislature: "[T]oday we have only one level of trial courts instead of the three that previously existed. The result was a change from a system of literally hundreds of part-time and full-time judges, to a point where, by [century's] end, we will have [42] full-time law trained trial judges."(557) This unified system has streamlined administration while making the system responsive to another perceived public need, that of reducing governmental expenditures for the justice system.(558)

But without any significant decrease in workloads in sight, most trial courts are already clearly overloaded. It remains to be seen whether this dictated "efficiency" is worth the associated costs to the public from justice delayed.

558. A prior attempt to complete unification by integrating the clerks of court into the unified system was ineffective. See N.D. Cent. Code § 11-17-11 (1995) (repealed 1999) (giving counties the option to "transfer responsibility for funding for the clerk of district court to the state"). But, the 1999 legislature authorized integration while assuring continued court services in every county, beginning April 1, 2001. See 1999 N.D. Laws ch. 278, at 1172-1210. A movement by clerks from some of the smaller counties to refer that measure to a popular vote failed to garner enough petition signatures to file with the Secretary of State. SeeNews from the North Dakota Supreme Court </court/News/M7_1999.htm>.

The primary duty of clerks of court is to keep judicial records orderly and securely. These largely clerical positions have little or no policy responsibilities anymore, if they ever did. The positions should not be elective, but auxiliary to the judicial system.